I fully agree that all the ink the other side gets is
troublesome. But this pro-alien publicity is business as usual
as far as we`re concerned. It doesn`t for a second change the
underlying facts: the Treason Lobby does not
have the
Senate votes to pass
"comprehensive
immigration reform".

If the Senate is so engulfed in turbidity that it decides to
introduce legislation that promotes amnesty in any way, shape or
form, it will fail—and it also may have the wonderful side
effect of bringing down in 2010
some of the
worst Congressional advocates for amnesty.

Here, as of today, is how things shape up.

From reading and analyzing various immigration law websites,
I`ve assembled a composite picture of how our opponents evaluate
their position in the wake of what it perceives as its
E-Verify
victory.

What follows here is a cobbled together version of their
opinion, not mine.

When the time
comes for the crucial cloture vote on CIR,
Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid has the support of his caucus,
even if it disagrees on the underlying bill.

Usually,
majority leaders possess that support. In recent weeks, Reid has
"valiantly stood up" to the anti-immigration lobby.
Furthermore, many of the usual champions of immigration in the
Republican Party will vote for cloture for CIR, lessening
Reid`s
reliance on the few Democrats who might defect.

Since E-Verify
is crucial to the anti-immigration lobby, it is necessary for
the proponents of immigration to hold it over as a bargaining
chip when the time for CIR arrives, perhaps in late summer.

The Democratic
leadership`s plan to now move on to
health care reform (with a possible detour into yet
another stimulus bill to come), and after that to take up
immigration reform.

The Senate
appears ready although House leadership is lukewarm. But the
House is unlikely to drop the ball if the Senate drops it into
its lap. While many believe that concerns about the economy may
hold up
immigration reform, Congress has now postponed action on
immigration for so long despite the immigration
lawyers` opinion,
expressed on ILW.com, that
"no further deferral is politically possible or wise."

But obviously, the immigration lawyers underestimate the
"anti-immigration lobby," and completely misinterpret the
two swing votes.

(Remember as you read on that a "no" vote represents a
"yes" for E-Verify.)

On a straight vote, we probably would have won. None of the 47
who supported our side would have defected. And at least a small
handful would have found it too politically embarrassing to vote
directly against E-Verify—thereby insulting American workers
both employed and unemployed.

What killed Session` motion was backroom political maneuvering
that led
Reid and Leahy to table it.

Reid`s agenda is to shove through huge Democratic
spending
bills during Obama`s
honeymoon
period. In other words, get the billions while the getting
is at its best.

The last thing that Specter wants is to appear weak to
Pennsylvania voters on American jobs.

To sum up, I`ll return to the immigration lawyers to count all
the other places where they`re wrong.

E-Verify is too important to Americans to be used as a "bargaining
chip"—and the Senate knows it.

Comprehensive immigration reform doesn`t have to be debated in "late
summer" or at any other pre-determined time despite the
claim that postponing further would be "unwise". In fact,
the appetite for a long, heated Senate fight over immigration
would be least likely if it were proposed immediately following
health care—certain to be divisive and futile given that the
government is broke.

Why is
the House"unlikely to drop the ball"—meaning it
would not pass a Senate amnesty sent to it for approval? Where`s
the supporting evidence for that claim?

One more thing—to pass amnesty, the Senate needs 60 votes. If it
had a deep commitment to immigration reform, more than 50 would
have voted "yes" on Sessions` tabling motion.

"A congressional aide said Obama committed to work with the
Hispanic Caucus and `start the process` of holding
meetingsand forums on immigration reform
within the next few months."

"A White House aide said Obama will make a public statement
on immigration reform `at some point.` But
discussions at Wednesday`s meeting did not go into detail
on the format for immigration forums, the aide added."

And

"It was not clear, however, if the White House would
push congressional leaders to actually take up
immigration reform legislation
this year."

This is where comprehensive immigration reform really is:
eventually a "process" will begin to hold "meetings
and forums." And "at some point," Obama will make a
"public statement" even though today there are "no
details."

Sounds to me like the old
check-is-in-the-mail double speak. No one on the other side
should be holding his breath.

But should you have any remaining doubts about what Obama thinks
about the Caucus, take a close look at his body language shown
in
this photo taken during the meeting.

Body language experts interpret that a hand placed over the
mouth, as Obama is pictured doing, indicates negative impulses
and disapproval. (Even more damning, it appears that other
Hispanic participants are sleeping soundly.)

According to the experts, Obama looks like
"Comprehensive
Immigration Reform" is the last thing on his mind.

Joe Guzzardi[email
him] is a California native
who recently fled the state because of over-immigration,
over-population and a rapidly deteriorating quality of life. He
has moved to Pittsburgh, PA where the air is clean and the
growth rate stable. A
long-time instructor in English at the Lodi Adult School,
Guzzardi has been writing a weekly column since 1988. It
currently appears in the Lodi News-Sentinel.